Midterm Elections

[Jay59]

It's a little over six months to the midterm elections. Is a Congressional change of parties already inevitable?

The New Republic says no.

The Democrats Are Not Dead Yet

Despite conventional wisdom, the party is not doomed in November’s midterm elections. The economy, Covid-19, the invasion of Ukraine, and the January 6 insurrection are all wild cards.

newrepublic.com

Dynamic inaction captures the current mood on Capitol Hill—and the safe bet is that this paralysis will continue until November. Almost certainly, the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court pretty much exhausts what Biden and the Democrats can expect from an evenly divided Congress. But scenarios of a Democratic rebound do not require Joe Manchin suddenly to decide—like Scrooge after seeing the ghosts of Christmas—that he wants to spend trillions on social programs and battling climate change out of a newfound spirit of generosity. ...​

​

The underappreciated truth is that this is an off-year election without historical parallels. A Supreme Court decision eviscerating or overturning Roe v. Wade could galvanize Democratic turnout. In the midst of the global crisis in Ukraine—with Americans again worrying about the specter of nuclear war—it is impossible to predict the role that Biden’s foreign policy leadership might play in November.​

​

The Hill disagrees

The Memo: Bad economic news haunts Democrats ahead of midterms

President Biden and other Democrats are confronting a stark truth — they’re getting blamed for what’s bad in the economy and getting no credit for what’s good. The dynamic could spell electoral doo…

thehill.com

​

Democrats insist that the coronavirus relief bill that Biden passed more than a year ago still does not get due credit for having ameliorated the effects of the pandemic. But they also know voters’ memories are short, and that the legislation in question, the American Rescue Plan, is a long way in the rearview mirror. As if all that were not enough, the war in Ukraine is now commanding the lion’s share of public attention and exacerbating the very inflationary pressures that are causing Democrats such problems.​

​

It’s a grim scenario for the president and his party. Democrats still hold out hope that things can turn around, but the chances of rebuffing a GOP wave in November seem to be getting smaller and smaller.​

​

The fact remains that it is a long way to November. The slow summer months are looming and attention will turn elsewhere.

What say you?

 

[tres borrachos]

I say what anyone with a working brain says. Except for FDR and GW Bush, every single President of the last 100 years or so has seen his party lose seats and/or control in the midterms. So it's to be expected now.

 

[NatMorton]

I say what anyone with a working brain says. Except for FDR and GW Bush, every single President of the last 100 years or so has seen his party lose seats and/or control in the midterms. So it's to be expected now.

Let the damage control narrative begin.

 

[tres borrachos]

Let the damage control narrative begin.

Prove my statement wrong. I'll wait.

 

[Cardinal]

Let the damage control narrative begin.

It's not "damage control," it's just true.

 

[Integrityrespec]

It's a little over six months to the midterm elections. Is a Congressional change of parties already inevitable?

The New Republic says no.

The Democrats Are Not Dead Yet

Despite conventional wisdom, the party is not doomed in November’s midterm elections. The economy, Covid-19, the invasion of Ukraine, and the January 6 insurrection are all wild cards.

newrepublic.com

Dynamic inaction captures the current mood on Capitol Hill—and the safe bet is that this paralysis will continue until November. Almost certainly, the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court pretty much exhausts what Biden and the Democrats can expect from an evenly divided Congress. But scenarios of a Democratic rebound do not require Joe Manchin suddenly to decide—like Scrooge after seeing the ghosts of Christmas—that he wants to spend trillions on social programs and battling climate change out of a newfound spirit of generosity. ...​

​

The underappreciated truth is that this is an off-year election without historical parallels. A Supreme Court decision eviscerating or overturning Roe v. Wade could galvanize Democratic turnout. In the midst of the global crisis in Ukraine—with Americans again worrying about the specter of nuclear war—it is impossible to predict the role that Biden’s foreign policy leadership might play in November.​

​

The Hill disagrees

The Memo: Bad economic news haunts Democrats ahead of midterms

President Biden and other Democrats are confronting a stark truth — they’re getting blamed for what’s bad in the economy and getting no credit for what’s good. The dynamic could spell electoral doo…

thehill.com

​

Democrats insist that the coronavirus relief bill that Biden passed more than a year ago still does not get due credit for having ameliorated the effects of the pandemic. But they also know voters’ memories are short, and that the legislation in question, the American Rescue Plan, is a long way in the rearview mirror. As if all that were not enough, the war in Ukraine is now commanding the lion’s share of public attention and exacerbating the very inflationary pressures that are causing Democrats such problems.​

​

It’s a grim scenario for the president and his party. Democrats still hold out hope that things can turn around, but the chances of rebuffing a GOP wave in November seem to be getting smaller and smaller.​

​

The fact remains that it is a long way to November. The slow summer months are looming and attention will turn elsewhere.

What say you?

Trend is leaning heavily to the Republicans.
1. Joe Biden is proving to be a disaster for the democrats. His approval rating is lower and continues to slip on key issues such as inflation, fuel prices, handling of Ukraine, Mexican border, and others. Is it carved in stone, no, of course not, it's politics but with Biden still in office it's tough to see a turnaround. The rest of the party is starting to turn on him as well as they try to protect their positions i the government. The democrat party has gone so far to the left that they are beginning to rot from the inside out.

 

[NatMorton]

Prove my statement wrong. I'll wait.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was your attempt at damage control. Now prove me wrong.

 

[tres borrachos]

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was your attempt at damage control. Now prove me wrong.

I answered a question another poster posed, and answered it honestly. Why do you call that "damage control"? Everyone knows the Dems were going to lose seats in the midterms, as has been the case in all midterms except 2 going back 100 years. That's called statistical probability.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I say what anyone with a working brain says. Except for FDR and GW Bush, every single President of the last 100 years or so has seen his party lose seats and/or control in the midterms. So it's to be expected now.

True, and this midterm is possibly going to set record losses, thank's to Joe Biden and the democrats crazy progressive dismantling of the the United States. The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth and in history. It is that way because the U.S. has ethics, morals, tradition and a rich history. The progressives want to erase all that and move to illegal immigration, child abuse through gender reassignment, energy dependence on foreign nations, crime run amuck and no consequences for the perpetrators. Those are just a few of the crazy policies they support.
The nation appears to be fed up with this kind of progressive insanity and it may come to be the straw that breaks the progressives backs.

 

[NatMorton]

I answered a question another poster posed, and answered it honestly. Why do you call that "damage control"? Everyone knows the Dems were going to lose seats in the midterms, as has been the case in all midterms except 2 going back 100 years. That's called statistical probability.

I call it damage control because while what you said was technically accurate it is almost a lie by omission.

Yes, nearly every President loses ground in Congress, especially during their first term. But you're attempting to divert the conversation away from the relevant point, which is how big that loss might be. If the Democrats only lose a few seats, then it should be considered a strong showing in a historical context. If, on the other hand, the Democrats take a beating like they did in 1994 or 2010, then that would have to be considered a major loss.

The attempt at damage control is your assertion that any loss would not be noteworthy because there are always losses; that is simply inaccurate.

 

[tres borrachos]

I call it damage control because while what you said was technically accurate it is almost a lie by omission.

Yes, nearly every President loses ground in Congress, especially during their first term. But you're attempting to divert the conversation away from the relevant point, which is how big that loss might be. If the Democrats only lose a few seats, then it should be considered a strong showing in a historical context. If, on the other hand, the Democrats take a beating like they did in 1994 or 2010, then that would have to be considered a major loss.

The attempt at damage control is your assertion that any loss would not be noteworthy because there are always losses; that is simply inaccurate.

It was a statement of fact. He asked the question and I answered it truthfully and with fact. Why are you getting your panties all twisted? You should answer his question and not focus on my posting of simple facts. Stop with your stupid posts.

 

[Ikari]

We'll see, but I wouldn't put any stock into the Democrats competency.

 

[Tender Branson]

Except GWB (who saw a 9/11 rally-around-the-flag effect) every new President in the last 70 years or so suffered a midterm loss.

Biden and Dems will be no different.

The question just is how big the R wave will be ... and what lunatics will be swept into office as a result.

 

[NatMorton]

It was a statement of fact. He asked the question and I answered it truthfully and with fact. Why are you getting your panties all twisted? You should answer his question and not focus on my posting of simple facts. Stop with your stupid posts.

Relax and calm down. I'm simply calling you out on an attempt to mislead by the use of an irrelevant fact.

By the way, did you know that between the two us Warren Buffett and I are worth billions?

 

[tres borrachos]

Relax and calm down. I'm simply calling you out on an attempt to mislead by the use of an irrelevant fact.

By the way, did you know that between the two us Warren Buffett and I are worth billions?

I answered the question with a statement of fact. Stop the bullshit about attempts to mislead. Stop quoting me if you can't post about the topic.

 

[AGENT J]

I say what anyone with a working brain says. Except for FDR and GW Bush, every single President of the last 100 years or so has seen his party lose seats and/or control in the midterms. So it's to be expected now.

SHHHHHHHH dont post common sense like that!!! how dare you!!
it will just be ignored and false narrative created by the batshit insane nutters anyway LOL

now with that said, "losing" is meaningless based on reality and facts
now if there is some type of historical loss . . then that could be talked about and discussion worthy but until then its pretty meaningless

 

[NatMorton]

I answered the question with a statement of fact. Stop the bullshit about attempts to mislead. Stop quoting me if you can't post about the topic.

I'll quote you where and when I like and, more importantly, will point out where and when you are attempting to misinform. If that bothers you, you know what you can do.

 

[Perotista]

It's a little over six months to the midterm elections. Is a Congressional change of parties already inevitable?

The New Republic says no.

The Democrats Are Not Dead Yet

Despite conventional wisdom, the party is not doomed in November’s midterm elections. The economy, Covid-19, the invasion of Ukraine, and the January 6 insurrection are all wild cards.

newrepublic.com

Dynamic inaction captures the current mood on Capitol Hill—and the safe bet is that this paralysis will continue until November. Almost certainly, the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court pretty much exhausts what Biden and the Democrats can expect from an evenly divided Congress. But scenarios of a Democratic rebound do not require Joe Manchin suddenly to decide—like Scrooge after seeing the ghosts of Christmas—that he wants to spend trillions on social programs and battling climate change out of a newfound spirit of generosity. ...​

​

The underappreciated truth is that this is an off-year election without historical parallels. A Supreme Court decision eviscerating or overturning Roe v. Wade could galvanize Democratic turnout. In the midst of the global crisis in Ukraine—with Americans again worrying about the specter of nuclear war—it is impossible to predict the role that Biden’s foreign policy leadership might play in November.​

​

The Hill disagrees

The Memo: Bad economic news haunts Democrats ahead of midterms

President Biden and other Democrats are confronting a stark truth — they’re getting blamed for what’s bad in the economy and getting no credit for what’s good. The dynamic could spell electoral doo…

thehill.com

​

Democrats insist that the coronavirus relief bill that Biden passed more than a year ago still does not get due credit for having ameliorated the effects of the pandemic. But they also know voters’ memories are short, and that the legislation in question, the American Rescue Plan, is a long way in the rearview mirror. As if all that were not enough, the war in Ukraine is now commanding the lion’s share of public attention and exacerbating the very inflationary pressures that are causing Democrats such problems.​

​

It’s a grim scenario for the president and his party. Democrats still hold out hope that things can turn around, but the chances of rebuffing a GOP wave in November seem to be getting smaller and smaller.​

​

The fact remains that it is a long way to November. The slow summer months are looming and attention will turn elsewhere.

What say you?

Going by if the election were held today with the numbers available today. I look first look at redistricting, 47 states have completed the process, leaving 3 more states to go. Missouri, Florida and New Hampshire. 397 districts are now official, leaving 38 districts to be redrawn. There are 42 competitive, switchable, at risk districts. Currently held by 29 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Safe seats as of 11 Apr 2022, 177 Democratic, 178 Republican.

The importance of safe seats is that they let you know how many seats from the competitive/at risk column and those districts yet to be redrawn a party must win to gain control of the House. As of today, the democrats need 41 more seats to reach the magic number of 218. The Republicans also need 40. It remains to be seen how many safe seats each of the 3 remaining states add to each party’s safe seat column along with how many will go into the competitive/at risk column. Going by the 47 states which have completed the redistricting task, I say a gain of 7-10 seats by the GOP is the most probable. But this doesn’t include Florida, Missouri or New Hampshire. Beings Missouri and Florida are Republican states, I’d say a gain of 15 plus seats for the GOP.

The senate, there’re 5 states listed as pure tossups. Democratically held Arizona, Nevada and Georgia along with Republican held Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Pure tossups mean those states could go either way. Republican held North Carolina is in the lean Republican column along with Democratic held New Hampshire in the lean Democrat column. The rest are pretty much set, safe, solid. The senate isn’t going to change much, plus or minus one or two seats either way or end up again in a 50-50 tie. My SWAG today is a Republican pickup of 1 seat to give them control 51-49.

 

[tres borrachos]

SHHHHHHHH dont post common sense like that!!! how dare you!!
it will just be ignored and false narrative created by the batshit insane nutters anyway LOL

now with that said, "losing" is meaningless based on reality and facts
now if there is some type of historical loss . . then that could be talked about and discussion worthy but until then its pretty meaningless

Just like almost every other midterm of our lifetimes, our parents' lifetimes, and our grandparents' lifetimes, the party in power will lose seat. You have to be an idiot to not know why it didn't happen to FDR and GWB.

 

[Chomsky]

Going by if the election were held today with the numbers available today. I look first look at redistricting, 47 states have completed the process, leaving 3 more states to go. Missouri, Florida and New Hampshire. 397 districts are now official, leaving 38 districts to be redrawn. There are 42 competitive, switchable, at risk districts. Currently held by 29 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Safe seats as of 11 Apr 2022, 177 Democratic, 178 Republican.

The importance of safe seats is that they let you know how many seats from the competitive/at risk column and those districts yet to be redrawn a party must win to gain control of the House. As of today, the democrats need 41 more seats to reach the magic number of 218. The Republicans also need 40. It remains to be seen how many safe seats each of the 3 remaining states add to each party’s safe seat column along with how many will go into the competitive/at risk column. Going by the 47 states which have completed the redistricting task, I say a gain of 7-10 seats by the GOP is the most probable. But this doesn’t include Florida, Missouri or New Hampshire. Beings Missouri and Florida are Republican states, I’d say a gain of 15 plus seats for the GOP.

While I have no idea here . . .

The senate, there’re 5 states listed as pure tossups. Democratically held Arizona, Nevada and Georgia along with Republican held Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Pure tossups mean those states could go either way. Republican held North Carolina is in the lean Republican column along with Democratic held New Hampshire in the lean Democrat column. The rest are pretty much set, safe, solid. The senate isn’t going to change much, plus or minus one or two seats either way or end up again in a 50-50 tie. My SWAG today is a Republican pickup of 1 seat to give them control 51-49.

. . . I agree here!

 

[Buckeyes85]

I'll quote you where and when I like and, more importantly, will point out where and when you are attempting to misinform. If that bothers you, you know what you can do.

I appreciate a lot of your posts, even when we usually disagree on the position. But you are flat wrong on this one to the point of you should apologize for implying someone was lying, or misleading, when they clearly were not.

 

[Blue Dog]

In the 21 midterm elections held since 1934, only twice has the president's party gained seats in both the Senate and the House: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first midterm election and George W. Bush's first midterm election.


On four other occasions, the president's party gained Senate seats and once it was a draw. On one occasion, the president's party gained House seats. The worst midterm losses tend to occur in a president's first term.

The President's Party Loses an Average 30 Seats in Midterm Elections

Read a list of midterm election results and find out why the president's party almost always loses seats in Congress. There are few exceptions.

www.thoughtco.com

2022 will not be an exception to the rule.

 

[gbg3]

I call it damage control because while what you said was technically accurate it is almost a lie by omission.

Yes, nearly every President loses ground in Congress, especially during their first term. But you're attempting to divert the conversation away from the relevant point, which is how big that loss might be. If the Democrats only lose a few seats, then it should be considered a strong showing in a historical context. If, on the other hand, the Democrats take a beating like they did in 1994 or 2010, then that would have to be considered a major loss.

The attempt at damage control is your assertion that any loss would not be noteworthy because there are always losses; that is simply inaccurate.

Yeah, if it ends up being a major loss, will the Dems do as Obama did and call it a shellacking? Or will they just decide on the "damage control" narrative of losses are just expected, like they are on this thread.
But frankly, I don't care how they respond as long as we flip (hopefully) both chambers.

 

[NatMorton]

I appreciate a lot of your posts, even when we usually disagree on the position. But you are flat wrong on this one to the point of you should apologize for implying someone was lying, or misleading, when they clearly were not.

Sorry, no. That was absolutely an attempt to mislead. She was attempting to say, in effect, "It won't mean anything if the Democrats lose seats in November because that happens to all first term Presidents." That is simply wrong. The two elections I cited, '94 and '10, were seismic.

 

[NatMorton]

I appreciate a lot of your posts, even when we usually disagree on the position. But you are flat wrong on this one to the point of you should apologize for implying someone was lying, or misleading, when they clearly were not.

And BTW, if you read what I wrote you'll see I didn't call it a lie. I said it was "almost a lie by omission."